Afraid I've lost it. Are we saying the furlough scheme over-writes contracts of employment?
The Contract of Employment will define the number of days holiday in a holiday year (minimum 28 days including public holidays). Nothing has changed on that score with furlough, the contract of employment continues as does the accrual of holidays.
Are you familiar with The Working Time Regulations (1998)? The minimum 28 days must be given, but the employer is able, and always has been, to allocate how those 28 days are taken - with the caveat of giving sufficient notice, as I explained earlier in this thread.
I've currently got half my team on furlough, one off with corona-virus and one in A&E with his heart playing up (late-20s - not good).
So I'm trying to cover the work of 4/5 others who are all junior to me and have been told I still have to take 12 days leave by the end of June or I will lose it. I've booked the time off, but I know full well that I will still have to work over those days or else the firm will lose jobs/clients/fees at worst or I'll just have even more to do when I am back "working".
It's shitty, but there it is. At least I still have a job and am fortunate enough to be able to work from home.
Whilst the furlough scheme is very welcome, was there actually an act of parliament to over-ride legally binding contracts of employment, or is Boris winging it again?
Whilst the furlough scheme is very welcome, was there actually an act of parliament to over-ride legally binding contracts of employment, or is Boris winging it again?
It’s got fuck all to do with Boris ... it’s about employers and employees protecting their companies ... @bobmunro has already explained it to you
Whilst the furlough scheme is very welcome, was there actually an act of parliament to over-ride legally binding contracts of employment, or is Boris winging it again?
Whilst the furlough scheme is very welcome, was there actually an act of parliament to over-ride legally binding contracts of employment, or is Boris winging it again?
The Job Retention Scheme was part of the Coronavirus Act 2020 which authorised HMRC to grant the 80% up to £2,500 per month payments.
Employers and employees have to agree to furlough (signed agreement) - it is not a unilateral act by the employer. If the employee does not agree to be furloughed then their contractual terms remain unaltered and the existing legally binding contract of employment remains intact. The Job Retention Scheme is, not surprisingly, designed to retain jobs that would otherwise have been lost and one of the conditions of furlough is that there is no work for the employee. So the almost certain consequence of the employee choosing to refuse furlough and instead remain on their full contractual terms is redundancy - one of the fair reasons for dismissal.
So the free choice for the employee is to agree to receive 80% of their pay, up to £2500 per month which may or may not be topped up to 100% by their employer (although there is no obligation to do so), maintain employment, and have a chance of retaining their job once the demand for work returns - OR be made redundant. Tough call that one!
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
How is that legal?
How is what legal?
I get the feeling you're looking for an angle here. But not sure what. Just tell us and we can put your mind at ease.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
How is that legal?
How is what legal?
I get the feeling you're looking for an angle here. But not sure what. Just tell us and we can put your mind at ease.
That’s totally obvious mate and has been from the start ... let’s find someone to blame ... ohhh and ensure it’s the tories.
In a nutshell I think the alternative is, your company go into admin/liquidation and you have no job or income. It is protecting employers and employees short term. The thought is 80% of earnings for a short period means you will remain with a job for a good deal longer and when this passes hopefully you can return to your job on full pay. That doesn’t mean that some employers are taking the p but they are permitted to do this.
If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
You could not have received better info or from a better source than @b@bobmunro
In a nutshell I think the alternative is, your company go into admin/liquidation and you have no job or income. It is protecting employers and employees short term. The thought is 80% of earnings for a short period means you will remain with a job for a good deal longer and when this passes hopefully you can return to your job on full pay. That doesn’t mean that some employers are taking the p but they are permitted to do this.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
How is that legal?
How is what legal?
I get the feeling you're looking for an angle here. But not sure what. Just tell us and we can put your mind at ease.
That’s totally obvious mate and has been from the start ... let’s find someone to blame ... ohhh and ensure it’s the tories.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
How is that legal?
How is what legal?
I get the feeling you're looking for an angle here. But not sure what. Just tell us and we can put your mind at ease.
That’s totally obvious mate and has been from the start ... let’s find someone to blame ... ohhh and ensure it’s the tories.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
How is that legal?
How is what legal?
I get the feeling you're looking for an angle here. But not sure what. Just tell us and we can put your mind at ease.
That’s totally obvious mate and has been from the start ... let’s find someone to blame ... ohhh and ensure it’s the tories.
No, not the Tories, individual companies. My family has one member getting 100% pay, the other 80%. The furlough scheme is about the only thing about the crisis which I applaud, and quite frankly still struggle to believe they did it.
If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
As Bob has already said, if there is no work the employee has two options, take furlough (80% of gross pay for doing nothing) or redundancy. An employee is furloughed if there is no work so either of these are legally justifiable.
There needs to be consent for furlough, no employer is able to force their staff to accept less money. So to answer your question, it’s not legal to just pay someone £1600 even if there are contracted for £2,000. They do have to agree to furlough as it’s a change in terms and conditions. But 98% of people would happily accept it considering they are doing nothing. The other 2% are dickheads.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
How is that legal?
How is what legal?
I get the feeling you're looking for an angle here. But not sure what. Just tell us and we can put your mind at ease.
That’s totally obvious mate and has been from the start ... let’s find someone to blame ... ohhh and ensure it’s the tories.
No, not the Tories, individual companies. My family has one member getting 100% pay, the other 80%. The furlough scheme is about the only thing about the crisis which I applaud, and quite frankly still struggle to believe they did it.
Fair enough, but Bob has explained it very clearly ... it really is sink or swim ... and furlough helps a company and its employees swim against a very difficult tide.
If the company has remaining funds, they top up to 100%, if not it can only be 80%.
I think it’s an amazing solution and has kept my son in work (and funds) in a situation when he could have received nothing.
Sorry, I am slightly off piste to thread title, thinking more of 80% furlough, or are people still getting 100% salary with HMG paying 80%? Out of work so don't know.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
How is that legal?
How is what legal?
I get the feeling you're looking for an angle here. But not sure what. Just tell us and we can put your mind at ease.
That’s totally obvious mate and has been from the start ... let’s find someone to blame ... ohhh and ensure it’s the tories.
No, not the Tories, individual companies. My family has one member getting 100% pay, the other 80%. The furlough scheme is about the only thing about the crisis which I applaud, and quite frankly still struggle to believe they did it.
You cannot expect struggling companies to top up the 20% if they have no revenue. 80% gross pay for doing nothing is incredibly generous. I accept it doesn’t help everyone as some are reliant on that extra 20% but it’s still fantastic.
Those on low incomes could also get universal credit to top it up too.
I was furloughed at 80% on 31/3, whole situation was clear to me, as others have stated, take a hit now, and hopefully in 2-3 months we will all be back in work on 100% and the economy and people’s jobs can start running again, either that or take the short term selfish outlook (bearing in my mind my travel costs have reduced, and some payment holidays applied, it’s evened itself out) and demand full pay but be one of, if not the first out of the door if redundancies have to take place, many bosses faced with such an attitude won’t forget it in a hurry. ive been lucky personally, we’ve had one bloke in full time during the whole thing (electric wholesale) on 100% to keep things ticking and collection only, that was added to by another 3-4 weeks ago as it was getting busier, I got the call 3-4 days before Boris’ announcement about going back to work, I was well pleased, on reduced hours but full pay, back to full hours in June, managed sensibly
If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
It is legal if both parties agree. If the employee doesn't agree to be furloughed then so be it - they stay on the £2000 per month, but almost certainly not for long as redundancy is the most likely very quick outcome - again legal.
I have some legal knowledge!
Edit: Just read @cafcfan1990 's earlier response - explained very well.
My family member is cabin staff for BA. All staff have been asked to re-apply for their jobs at reduced terms. She is scared for her job and has been asked to work three flights so far. In an aircraft two metre distancing is irrelevant as you are sharing recycled air. Putting herself and family recklessly at risk.
Take 20% cut in wages or job will be gone? Agreement? Choice? Did anyone think the government will let BA go bust? Regardless, taking a 20% hit is not going to save any airline, many of whom will go to the wall, along with many smaller companies. It is tragic.
Take an illegal wage cut to save your job, even if you might lose your job anyway? For those that don't know the BA situation, they have for a decade been forcing 1st tier staff out to get in people on lower contracts. There is only one target for BA. Get rid of longer contracted staff.
My family member is cabin staff for BA. All staff have been asked to re-apply for their jobs at reduced terms. She is scared for her job and has been asked to work three flights so far. In an aircraft two metre distancing is irrelevant as you are sharing recycled air. Putting herself and family recklessly at risk.
Take 20% cut in wages or job will be gone? Does anyone think the government will let BA go bust? Regardless, taking a 20% hit is not going to save any airline, many of whom will go to the wall, along with many smaller companies. It is tragic.
Take an illegal wage cut to save your job, even if you might lose your job anyway? For those that don't know the BA situation, they have for a decade been forcing 1st tier staff out to get in people on lower contracts. There is only one target for BA. Get rid of longer contracted staff.
A very difficult situation for all, but BA (along with every other airline) do indeed have one target - survival. If that means resetting the cost base of the business then that's what needs to happen.
I know of another well know business that is making c.40% of a scale workforce (over 1,000) redundant. Those that aren't redundant will be taking a 20% pay cut and moving to a 4 day week for the rest of the year. That company, like BA, is in survival mode.
I doubt whether its an "illegal wage cut" (as pointed out several times). Terribly sad, but these are unprecedented times and I think most would accept a salary reduction to secure some degree of medium to long term security.
Comments
So I'm trying to cover the work of 4/5 others who are all junior to me and have been told I still have to take 12 days leave by the end of June or I will lose it. I've booked the time off, but I know full well that I will still have to work over those days or else the firm will lose jobs/clients/fees at worst or I'll just have even more to do when I am back "working".
It's shitty, but there it is. At least I still have a job and am fortunate enough to be able to work from home.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't.
Some will be getting topped up by employer, some won't. It would depend on whether or not the employing entity was actually generating any revenue and could therefore afford to pay the top up.
I get the feeling you're looking for an angle here. But not sure what. Just tell us and we can put your mind at ease.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
stop fishing
ive been lucky personally, we’ve had one bloke in full time during the whole thing (electric wholesale) on 100% to keep things ticking and collection only, that was added to by another 3-4 weeks ago as it was getting busier, I got the call 3-4 days before Boris’ announcement about going back to work, I was well pleased, on reduced hours but full pay, back to full hours in June, managed sensibly
Take 20% cut in wages or job will be gone? Agreement? Choice? Did anyone think the government will let BA go bust? Regardless, taking a 20% hit is not going to save any airline, many of whom will go to the wall, along with many smaller companies. It is tragic.
Take an illegal wage cut to save your job, even if you might lose your job anyway? For those that don't know the BA situation, they have for a decade been forcing 1st tier staff out to get in people on lower contracts. There is only one target for BA. Get rid of longer contracted staff.
Why underlying aggression in replies?
I know of another well know business that is making c.40% of a scale workforce (over 1,000) redundant. Those that aren't redundant will be taking a 20% pay cut and moving to a 4 day week for the rest of the year. That company, like BA, is in survival mode.
I doubt whether its an "illegal wage cut" (as pointed out several times). Terribly sad, but these are unprecedented times and I think most would accept a salary reduction to secure some degree of medium to long term security.